Concepts and considerations for the synthesis of ecosystem goods and services in Finland

(1)

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Reports and Studies in Forestry and Natural Sciences

Olli Saastamoinen, Jukka matero,

Emmmi Haltia, Paula Horne, Seppo Kellomäki, Matleena Kniivilä & Kyösti Arovuori

Concepts and considera-

tions for the synthesis

of ecosystem goods and

services in Finland

(2)

OLLI SAASTAMOINEN, JUKKA MATERO, EMMI HALTIA, PAULA HORNE, SEPPO KELLOMÄKI, MATLEENA KNIIVILÄ & KYÖSTI AROVUORI

Concepts and considerations for the synthesis of ecosystem goods and services in Finland

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland Reports and Studies in Forestry and Natural Sciences

Number 10

University of Eastern Finland Faculty of Science and Forestry

School of Forest Sciences Joensuu

2013

(3)

Authors’ affiliations: Olli Saastamoinen¹, Jukka Matero², Emmi Haltia³, Paula Horne³, Seppo Kellomäki¹, Matleena Kniivilä³ & Kyösti Arovuori³

1University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences; ²University of Eastern Finland, School of Forest Sciences ( - 30.7.2012); ³Pellervo Economic Research PTT

Contact: Olli Saastamoinen, e-mail: olli.saastamoinen@uef.fi

Juvenes Print Tampere 2013 Editor Prof. Pertti Pasanen,

Prof. Pekka Kilpeläinen, Prof. Kai Peiponen, Prof. Matti Vornanen Distribution:

Eastern Finland University Library / Sales of publications P.O.Box 107, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland

tel. +358-50-3058396 http://www.uef.fi/kirjasto

ISBN: 978-952-61-1039-4 ISBN: 978-952-61-1040-0 (PDF)

ISSNL: 1798-5684 ISSN: 1798-5684 ISSN: 1798-5692 (PDF)

(4)

Saastamoinen, O., Matero, J., Haltia, E., Horne, P., Kellomäki, S., Kniivilä, M. & Arovuori, K. 2013. Concepts and considerations for the synthesis of ecosystem goods and services in Finland.

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Reports and Studies in Forestry and Natural Sciences. No 10. 108 p.

ABSTRACT

The goods and services (ecosystem services) of the forest, peatland, agro- and freshwater ecosystems of Finland have so far not been under systematic and integrated examination. The purpose of the report is to provide a common conceptual and contextual background for the ongoing study aiming at the identification, classification, monitoring and valuation of ecosystem services of the boreal ecosystems of Finland. The major method is a conceptual and historical framework analysis based on literature and other material. The utilization of goods and services of nature before industrialization is featured indicating not only their vital importance but also the dynamics of land uses. The analysis of current land use statistics reveals alternatives in drawing line between forest and peatland ecosystems. The complexity of the ecological framework – structures and processes of ecosystems and ecological production functions of ecosystem services – is illustrated from different angles, including the roles of human inputs. The multitude of the definitions of ecosystem services is presented and discussed. The classifications of ecosystem services and the ecological and institutional interconnectedness of ecosystems are considered. Finally, arguments are given to some conceptual choices and other important points of view explicitly taken into account in the ongoing synthesis study.

Key words: boreal ecosystem services, pre-industrial use of nature, land use, production of ecosystem services, interconnectedness, concept analysis

(5)

Saastamoinen, O., Matero, J., Haltia, E., Horne, P., Kellomäki, S., Kniivilä, M. & Arovuori, K. 2013. Concepts and considerations for the synthesis of ecosystem goods and services in Finland.

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland. Reports and Studies in Forestry and Natural Sciences. No 10. 108 s.

TIIVISTELMÄ

Suomen metsä-, suo, pelto- ja sisävesien ekosysteemien aineelliset tuotteet ja palvelut (ekosysteemipalvelut) eivät ole toistaiseksi olleet systemaattisen ja yhtenäisen tarkastelun kohteena. Raportin tarkoitus on tuottaa yhteistä käsitteellistä perustaa ja taustaa käynnissä olevalle tutkimukselle, jonka tarkoitus on tuottaa nykyiseen tietoon perustuva politiikkarelevantti synteesi maamme boreaalisten ekosysteemipalveluiden tunnistamisesta, luokittelusta, indikaattoreista ja arvottamisesta. Päämetodi on käsitteellisesti ja historiallisesti kehystävä analyysi kirjallisuuteen ja muuhun aineistoon perustuen. Luonnon aineellisten tuotteiden ja palvelusten varhaisen käytön kuvaus osoittaa sekä niiden ratkaisevaa merkitystä että muutosdynamiikkaa ennen maamme teollistumista. Ekosysteemien nykyisten pinta-alojen tarkastelussa suon ja metsän käsitteiden päällekkäisyys merkitsee, että niiden osuus maankäytössä vaihtelee sen mukaan, miten metsät ja suot määritellään. Ekosysteemipalveluja tuottavan ekologisen kehikon kompleksisuutta – ekosysteemien rakenteista, prosesseista ja ekologisista tuotantofunktioista koostuvaa – tarkastellaan useasta näkökulmasta inhimilliset panokset huomioiden.

Ekosysteemipalvelujen käsitteen moninaisuutta ja palvelujen luokitteluja esitellään sekä ekosysteemien ekologisia ja institutionaalisia sidoksia havainnollistetaan. Lopuksi perustellaan käynnissä olevassa synteesitutkimuksessa tehtyjä valintoja ja omaksuttuja näkökohtia.

Avainsanat: boreaaliset ekosysteemipalvelut, esiteollinen luonnonkäyttö, maankäyttö, ekosysteemipalvelujen tuotanto, kytkeytyneisyys, käsiteanalyysi

(6)

Forward

This report is a part of the synthesis study ”Integrated and policy relevant valuation of forest, agro-, peatland and aquatic ecosystem services in Finland” funded by The Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation. The study is carried out by the University of Eastern Finland and Pellervo Economic Research PTT together with a number of voluntary contributing authors from several research institutes, universities and expert organizations.

The objective of the one-year study is to produce an up-to- date synthesis of the goods and services of the four major ecosystems in Finland to serve improved decision making, governance and public communication.

The purpose of the report is introduce and discuss concepts and conceptual frameworks which provide general grounds for the identification, classification, valuation and indicators of the ecosystem services. It reviews a part of the extensive research, discussion and development in this field and wishes to relate perspectives from Finnish boreal ecosystems to the ongoing discussion. Among a wide spectrum of topics considered, the report aims to illustrate the complexity of the ecological processes producing ecosystem services, which – usually with human inputs – generate goods, benefits and values people can enjoy.

It is hoped that this report will further the growing interest and understanding of the boreal ecosystems goods and services in Finland and elsewhere. Two other working papers on the classifications of aquatic and forest ecosystem services will come out soon. Other working papers will follow in due course.

Besides funding, The Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation initiated the synthesis study. The project management group organized by the foundation has been very supportive. The Finnish Environment Institute (Tiia Kiiski) and the Finnish Forest Research Institute (National Forest Inventory) have

(7)

kindly produced and allowed map material for this publication.

Matti Vaara (UEF) participated in material collection. The School of Forest Sciences of the University of Eastern Finland (UEF) has supported technical editing of the report, done by Marjut Turtiainen (UEF). The contributions of the co-authors of to the report have been important. Some of them belong to a larger “research community”, members of which are voluntarily participating to the compilation of the ongoing working papers of the synthesis study.

All this institutional and collegial support and cooperation is gratefully acknowledged.

Any comments on the report are welcome.

Olli Saastamoinen Study leader Professor

The School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland

(8)

1. Introduction

As everything included into a four-letter catchword life is facilitated by solar energy, it may not be inappropriate to repeat a worn-out saying “nothing new under the sun” also in regard to the ecosystem services. Different disciplines from philosophy and history to agricultural, biological, and forest sciences have not only recorded environmental, economic and social benefits and losses due to the use and misuse of natural world but also praised the importance of the “free gifts of nature” for the human civilization.

Among the latter, Hanns Carl von Carlowitz (1713) in his

“Sylvicultura oeconomica” gives a long list of forest benefits, from “the usefulness of wood at the start and end of life and mankind in general” to “protection of soil and roads, the usefulness of the forests as a seat of wild game, and sustenance for cattle, forests as beautiful environment for the song of birds”.

This is only a part of his list but one cannot be mistaken that provisional, regulatory and cultural ecosystem goods and services are already there.

Gómez-Baggethun et al. (2010) outlines the long history of

“ecosystem services” in economic theory and practice from pre- classical economics to marginal “revolution” decoupling economics conceptually from the physical world. In Finland, a short analysis of the position of nature in economic theory is found in Saastamoinen (1978, originally a thesis from 1971) and more comprehensive ones are included in Pulliainen & Seiskari (1972), Pulliainen (1979), Hoffren (1994), Määttä & Pulliainen (2003), Naskali et al. (2006) and Hiedanpää et al. (2010).

The origins of modern history of ecosystem services are to be found (following here also Gómez-Baggethun et al. 2010) in the late 1970s. They see “it starts with the utilitarian framing of beneficial ecosystem functions as services in order to increase public interest in biodiversity conservation and then continues

(11)

in the 1990s with the mainstreaming ecosystem services in the literature” (e.g. Daily 1997), “and with increased interest on methods to estimate their economic value” (Costanza et al.

1997). Even if there are other interpretations on the recent history, all of these agree upon that it was the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment 2003, 2005a; later MA 2003, 2005a) which assisted by 1300 scientists brought the concept of ecosystem services firmly on the international policy agenda. Since its release the literature on ecosystems services has grown exponentially (Fisher et al. 2009).

In Finland, the first reviews, state-of-the-art reports and research articles on ecosystem services had a focus on forests ecosystems (Matero et al. 2003, Matero & Saastamoinen 2007, Hytönen 2009, Kniivilä et al. 2011), but also more general reports or collection of articles have emerged (Hiedanpää et al.

2010, Ratamäki et al. 2011). However, the name is not a whole game. Although the three comprehensive synthesis reports of the Finnish biodiversity research programme of the Academy of Finland, “Depending on water” (Walls et al. 2004), “In the depths of forests”¹ (Kuuluvainen et al. 2004) and “Life in the field” (Tiainen et al. 2004a) only occasionally use the concept of ecosystem services, their contents is very relevant also from that point of view. A recent compilation of articles dealing with people and environment is more explicit with the concept of ecosystem services (Niemelä et al. 2011).

“In barely three decades a rapidly growing number of ecosystem functions have been characterised as services, valued in monetary terms and, to a lesser extent, incorporated to markets and payment mechanisms. As a part of this process, the use of the ecosystem services concept has transcended the academic arena to reach Governmental policy as well as the non profit, private and financial sectors” (EC 2008, Gómez- Baggethun et al. 2010). There is some concern for “the potential side effects that may result from mainstreaming of utilitarian

1 Translations of the original Finnish titles. All these extensive compilations are the outcomes of the Finnish Biodiversity Research Programme (FIBRE) of the

(12)

market-based rationales for conservation, in terms of both possible changes in motivational aspects for conservation, as well as in terms of exportation of particular worldviews in the understanding of the human nature relation” (Gomez- Baggethun et al. 2010).

The history of the interactions between human and nature has been manyfold and those phases or cultures that could be regarded harmonious ones have been exceptional. The main trend of exploitation has been accelerated during past two or three centuries, when economic development has harnessed a growing part of the energy and material stocks and flows of the earth and its ecosystems into industrial socio-ecological production and consumption systems. These are socio-economic drivers, which alongside welfare have brought adverse, sometimes threatening, externalities (such as pollution) to the very ecosystems they are largely dependent on (Haila & Levins 1992, MA 2005a, Mäler et al. 2009).

It is within this larger socio-economic and political context, where a niche for ecosystem services – the Ecosystem Approach (EA) – was developed in the implementation processes of the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD 2009). It soon became a common framework for scientifically assessing ecosystem change. Since Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (2003, 2005a) it has been able to provide not only scientific but also a genuine policy framework for further integrating natural and man-made (eco)systems in the ways sustainable development requires. This was done by bringing the emerging concept of ecosystem services as the vehicle to bind and analyze ecosystems and human well-being (MA 2005a).

No doubt, the concept of ecosystem services (ES) has become the key milestone and the driver in the current attempts for better integration of socio-economic and ecological processes and development (e.g. Fisher et al. 2009, TEEB 2010, UK NEA 2011, Haines-Young et al. 2012; in Finland Hiedanpää et al. 2010, Ratamäki et al. 2011, Kettunen et al. 2012) which in the recent years also has been put forward by strengthening “new socioeconomic” concepts such as “Bioeconomy“, “Green

(13)

economy”, “Green growth” and “Biocluster“ (e.g. Luoma et al.

2011, Pellervon taloustutkimus 2012).

Similarly with the international discussion, also in Finland the implications of ecosystem services for scientific and policy practice have been given attention. Hiedanpää et al. (2010) see ecosystem services as an integrative concept for multidisciplinary research. Lummaa et al. (2012) make ecosystem services as an example, where multidisciplinarity could be deepened into cross-disciplinarity. But it also works as a communicative and pedagogical concept.

The purpose of this working paper is to provide an up-to-date discussion and conceptual background for the first tasks (C Concepts) of the research project “Integrated and policy relevant valuation of forest, agro-, aquatic and peatland ecosystems services in Finland (ESPAT)²”. At the same time it will form a report of sub-tasks C1 and C3, which both are meant to support the major task (C2) of producing a coherent and systematic identification and taxonomy for the four ecosystem services of the study. (Separate working papers are produced to present the detailed classifications). It also contains conceptual material on ecosystem processes and functions (C3) to illustrate the complexity of the ways which the ecosystem goods and services and goods are formed to be available for the people, society and industries as benefits in their consumption and (further) production activities. These examples are mostly, but not only, related to forest ecosystems.

In brief, this working report aims to be a conceptual and discussive one with a broad profile having a purpose to serve

2 ESPAT-project “Integrated and policy relevant valuation of forest, agro-, aquatic and peatland ecosystems services in Finland” has a general objective

“to produce an up-to-date, integrated and policy relevant synthesis on the ecosystems services of forest, agro-, peatland and aquatic ecosystems in Finland to serve improved decision making, governance and public communication”. The four specific objectives are focused on Concepts (C), Indicators (I), Valuation (V) and Policy and decision making (P) (ESPAT research plan 30.11.2011).

(14)

the other more focused working papers to be produced during the study period.

(15)

2. Features on land use history and changes in Finland

2.1 HERITAGE OF THE LAST ICE AGE

Most elements of the ecosystems of Fennoscandia are relatively young. The ice cover of the last glacial period melted some 10 000 years ago. The first colonizers of the exposed land were grasses and weeds. As the ice receded the trees invaded to the north and current boreal forests were formed. Birch as a pioneer species arrived first. Pine established its distribution some 7000 years ago but spruce attained its present area only 2000 years ago (Kouki & Niemelä 1997). Larch is still on the road from the east.

Finland has the complete latitudinal cross-section on boreal forests divided into southern, middle boreal and northern boreal zones and their sub-zones (Fig. 1). Only the thin southwestern seashore zone of the Baltic Sea belongs to hemiboreal vegetation with several broadleaved species common in the temperate zone. In the north the boreal forest borders to the sub-arctic vegetation, a mix of small birches, brushes and treeless areas, which sometimes is seen to be the utmost extension of the boreal zone.

The other larger natural ecosystems of Finland – mires and peatland as well as lakes and rivers – are direct off-springs of the Ice Age: the melting waters found their forms and locations in the lowest terrains shaped by the retreating ice.

Watercourses – surrounding seas, rivers and lakes – provided access not only by boats during the summer but also on ice in winter time.

(16)

Fig. 1. Forest vegetation zones in Finland. The sub-arctic zone (5 Fjeld-Lapland) is sometimes regarded as the northernmost part of Northern boreal zone.

The “new” land revealed by the melting ice, and developing vegetation cover, was acting as a pulling factor leading to the small human populations to colonize the remote areas, some already when treeless tundra was prevailing landscape.

However, it is assumed that when larger groups arrived in the areas of Finland, conifer-dominated forests, interspersed by a mosaic of naturally burnt areas, wetlands and watercourses, covered the land. The trees provided man with stored solar

(17)

energy for fire making and raw-materials for shelter and dwellings. Later on, most items such as tools, carts, sledges, boats and ships were done from wood. Food was first got from gathering activities, and hunting. Wood ash fertilized the slash- and-burn fields and forest provided extensive pastures.

Charcoal and tar were made from wood (Helander 1949, Hannelius & Kuusela 1995, Kuuluvainen et al. 2004).

But the forests were not the only ecosystem providing resources for the settlers arriving along different routes and times.

Vilkuna & Mäkinen (1943) emphasize that from the times immemorial the Finns have settled their permanent shelters on the shores of lakes and rivers. In this way they have got an access to the two separate elements of nature: fish from waters and firewood from land, open landscape in the front and protecting forest behind, drinking water from the lake and hay from lakeshore meadow. Waters have not been a hinder, rather a moving opportunity in summer and during winter, easier than hilly and stony terrain. Without lakes and rivers, life would have been many times more difficult – and entirely impossible without water (Järnefelt 1952, Horppila & Muotka 2011).

2.2 GOODS AND SERVICES OF THE NATURE BEFORE INDUSTRIALIZATION

According to the historical evidence (Helander 1949, Fritzboeger & Soendergaard 1995) the Finnish people seemed to be among the latest, if not the latest, hunter-gatherer societies in Europe. This recognition may hold true as picking berries and mushrooms, hunting and fishing have kept rather stable popularity among the activities of the Finns, although nowadays less for the subsistence but as a combined activity of getting wild food and recreation (Saastamoinen 1997, Sievänen &

Neuvonen 2011).

In the past the wild nature formed the sole material basis for the survival of people. Although the food and other material

(18)

benefits could be seen “as a free gifts of nature”, nothing was really given free. People have to work hard to get the necessities of the life and continue life itself in the harsh conditions of boreal climate. The activities were adapted to the seasons of the year. The challenge in particular was to get through the winters.

The listing of the livelihood activities and industries in the following are also a part of economic and social history of the country.

Gathering nature’s products. In the history mankind everywhere the earliest means of survival have been gathering of non-wood forest and other nature’s eatable wild products, continuing the tradition of our ape ancestors. An abundance of animal and plant resources formed the basic means of prehistoric human subsistence in the deciduous and coniferous wildwoods of the Scandinavia (Fritzboeger & Soendergaard 1995). In Finland roots of plants, berries and mushrooms have been assumed to cover one quarter of the diet during the Stone Age (Mannermaa & Tallavaara 2012).

A cultural tradition, a customary law, called everyman’s rights, is even nowadays providing a free access to all types of

“wild” nature and to utilize berries, mushrooms and some other natural products from forests, waters and peatlands.

Hunting. Historians have claimed that it was not the amount of forests as such but the richness of game and fish, which brought our ancestors to these areas (Jutikkala 1933, Helander 1949). Hunting played a major role in the daily diet, as it has been assumed that nearly half (45%) of daily diet consisted of meat during the Stone Age. In the north it was mostly deer, in inland elks and beavers and on the coastal area seals (Mannermaa & Tallavaara 2012).

Hunting was also the first connection of the population to international markets and in the 16^th and 17^th century furs of beavers, elks, deer, wolves, lynx, foxes and squirrel were the most important export products of Finland (Helander 1949). Fur trade had an important centre in East-Preussia. The hunting and fur economy brought the country to become a part of the chain of the economy of the world (Jutikkala 1933).

(19)

Fishing. Hunters, which at the same time usually were fishing, could not stay in one place only. Due to the clear seasons typical to boreal climate, a model was gradually developed, where during certain times of the year people returned to their home places, where first slash-and-burn and then sedentary agriculture was practiced. Lakes and rivers not only gave fish but watercourses provided possibilities to extend hunting and fishing far to the big northern rivers and the Arctic Sea to catch lax (Helander 1949). Fish covered 30 % of daily diet during the Stone Age (Mannermaa & Tallavaara 2012).

Early agriculture. First signs of possible small-scale burnt clearings for cultivation go back some 4000-5000 years from now. It could have been mainly experimental efforts but gave some additions to hunting, fishing and gathering activities.

During the bronze and pre-roman iron ages it seems to have extended widely in the coasts and watershed areas of south and west even until northern river valley of Southern Lapland (Tiainen 2004).

Slash and burn agriculture was the prevailing mode of agriculture before and long alongside of the development of permanent agriculture (Heikinheimo 1915, Jutikkala 1933, Helander 1949). Although the period of slash-and-burn agriculture was long, its duration and intensity varied in different parts of the country. While in south-west Finland permanent agriculture was practiced already before and in the beginning of the 1^st millennium, in eastern Finland slash-and- burn replaced hunting as major livelihoods 14^th century. It peaked in 19^th century and ended not until in the first decades of 20^th century in the Eastern Finland (Helander 1949, Tiainen 2004). In fact, it has been noted that for centuries the prevailing mode of living has been the “combination economy”, where slash-and-burn and ordinary agriculture, hunting, fishing and gathering forest products were practiced together - and supporting each other. Burning forest created habitats for some wildlife. Another symbiotic relationship was found in Kuusamo where reindeer were feeding on the arboreal lichens from the trees felled before they were burnt for agricultural crops

(20)

(Taavitsainen 1994). Björn (2000) reported about the use of fire for increasing production of wild berries.

Besides geography, also the scales and practices were changing during the centuries. Rotation-type of slash-and-burn agriculture reduced greatly forests around settled areas, which eventually also was the purpose because open landscape gave a better shelter for cattle against predators and for houses from fire.

In the 11^th century a new “forest rye” species was discovered and the method of burning forest “from above” by girdling large standing trees was developed. This innovation promoted effectively the settlement of the central and eastern Finland.

In the eastern part of southern boreal zone as much as 50-70 per cent of forests were burnt at least once, and in the southern part 30 per cent. In these areas the more fertile deciduous and spruce forests dominated, compared to the western and northern parts of the country (Kuuluvainen et al. 2004).

The population in the whole country remained low, and due to crop failures of the last decade of 17^th century it was not more than 0.4 million and only was able to grow after the end of the Great Northern War (1700-1721) between Sweden and Russia allied with several Baltic sea countries. However, between that time and 1850 both field area and population more than quadrubled. In 1900 population was about 2 millions and field area c. 1 million ha (Tiainen 2004). The close tie between the growth of the population and field area continued up to the 1960. Helenius (2004) estimates that when the agricultural land area in Finland was at its largest, two thirds of the fields were earlier forests transformed mainly by slash-and-burn practices or otherwise cleared for agriculture.

Tar burning. A major reason, why the period of slash-and- burn agriculture was shorter in the western coastal areas of Finland than in inland, was that the peasantry of the west found a more profitable way to utilize forests – tar burning (Kuisma 1993).

In the tar production scars were made on the trunks of young pine trees to increase their natural resin production. After some

(21)

years the trees were cut and piled into downward sloping burning ground – formed in the shape of a funnel – with a spout at the lower end ground. It was covered with peat, and kindled.

In low oxygen conditions the burning trees extract liquid tar, which was collected into the barrels, transported by small boats along the lake and river routes to the seaside trading towns to be shipped abroad (Helander 1949).

Already in the 17^th century tar became the major export product of Finland as the Europe’s growing wooden trade and warfare ships demanded increasing volumes of tar for their maintenance. It reached the scale of large industry in 18^th century and the export peaked in the 1860s being nearly 23 million litres, requiring about one million m³of pine wood.

However, already 2-3 decades earlier the value of lumber export was higher than that of the tar. When metals substituted wood in ship building and new chemicals and competitors challenged tar, the exports turned down and tar burning practically ended in the early 20^th century (Kuisma 1993).

Tar had the major impact for the economic development. It brought wealth for traders in the selected coastal trading towns including the major centre in Stockholm, but it also provided much needed employment and income for peasants and workers even in remote production areas in the west coast and inland watershed areas.

However, harvesting of young pine forests decreased good quality pine logs and increased the amount of spruce in dry sites, where it was not able to grow well but became a headache of forestry of later times.

Household and early commercial use of wood. The major early (and still continuing) forest uses include harvesting logs and smaller wood for building houses, agricultural buildings and huge amount of fences as well as tools and equipment for numerous other purposes. Logs were easily available for construction and could be directly used with minimal work.

Besides buildings forest offered firewood – the basic good for survival in the cold climate for heating the houses and preparation of food.

(22)

Hewn logs, and later lumber, which in a larger scale was first sawn in water powered sawmills, firewood and many manufactured wood products (including a larger scale construction of wooden ships in the coasts of Ostrobothnia) also brought export income (Helander 1949, Vehkamäki 2006).

Grazing in the forest and collecting fodder was common all over in the country. The summer feeding of the cattle was based on grazing and in the 19^th century forests formed the primary grazing areas. Its impacts on forests increased with growing milk and other animal production since the end of the 19^th century. The areas left from slash-and-burn agriculture were commonly used for grazing. The role of forest grazing was the largest in the small farms and in the inland and eastern parts of the country. The winter feed was collected mainly from meadows but slash and burn areas also provided broadleaved twigs for winter feed and coniferous twigs for bedding for the cattle. The use of forests for grazing was still important in the 1930s, although cultivated hay fields were already established at that time (Laitinen 2012). Forest grazing was decisively decreasing until the 1960s. The last statistics on forest grazing area was from 1965 when it was 1.36 million hectares (Kuuluvainen et al. 2004, Pykälä 2011).

As slash and burn agriculture also forest grazing was a necessary stage in agricultural development. Both activities reduced forest quality as they often were located in most fertile forests. On the other hand these activities produced diversified biotopes later appreciated as heritage forests and cultural landscapes such as leaf fodder meadows, pasturages and grazing areas, which had developed their own rich biodiversity.

These traditional biotypes are now regarded as most threatened of all biotypes in Finland (Hanski 2011).

However, one important form of forest grazing has still kept its position. In Northern Finland there are large forest and fell areas, covering about one third of the country, which for centuries have been grazed by reindeer. Reindeer husbandry is based on free grazing of state and private forestry lands by about 200 000 privately owned reindeer managed in 57 reindeer

(23)

management districts and owned by about 1000 families (Maa- ja metsätalousministeriö 2013). In the northernmost part reindeer husbandry still forms a major economic foundation of the indigenous Sámi-culture, although the sources of livelihood are more diverse now. Reindeer husbandry is also found in the northern fell and forest areas of Sweden, Norway and Russia (Helle 1982).

Peatland uses. Mires and peatlands constitute a natural resource which man has exploited since early times, e.g. as hunting grounds and natural forage production sites for livestock. Later on, the use of mires shifted towards hand- cutting of peat for burning and animal bedding, followed by drying and clearing for agriculture and forestry (Päivänen &

Hånell 2012). In Finland, due to the short growing season and the farms’ considerable needs for all kind of wood, forest ownership has always seen as a necessary part of the agriculture. Before land reforms the needs for wood were met by the liberal use of state’s forests or undivided common lands of the villages. Owning forest very often means also owning mires, which originally covered one third of the terrestrial area of the country. When agriculture needed permanent fields, it was not only forests cleared for that, but also peatlands provided potential for agriculture.

First notes from agricultural uses of peatlands come from 14^th century and experiments to drain peatlands were established in 17^th century in Western and 18^th century in Eastern Finland.

Most nutritious mires in southern and central Finland were used already in 19^th century. First larger systematic drainage wave was established during the severe hunger years 1866-1868 (Vasander 2011a).

Drainage for agricultural purpose has been about one million hectare or c. 10% of total peatland area. The share of drained peatlands was at its largest 1/3 of all cultivated agricultural land, now it is 11% of total field area. It has been difficult to organize drainage effectively, because lowland area mires are cold and peat is acid and poor of nutrients (Vasander 2011a). Fire was

(24)

effectively and in large scale utilized when forested peatlands were prepared for cultivation.

The results of partially poorly drained peatlands on forest growth after some decades brought an idea for peatland drainage for forestry purposes, first in state forests in early 20^th century and then in larger scale facilitated by first Forest Improvement Act of 1928. Large scale mechanized peatland drainage were brought by several forestry intensification programmes in 1960s and 1970s, following the predicted wood shortage due to the expansion of forest industries after World War II settlement programs and rebuilding of economy. Now, 53 % of originally 10.4 million ha peatland and mire area of Finland has been drained for forestry purposes (Vasander 2011a).

During 19^th century one motivation for forest drainage of low land and open mires was the perception that it provides means to prevent night frost. Later on it was found rather to be the other way round during spring–summer nights. Sometimes also forest borders against peatlands were drained to prevent paludification. However, it was soon understood, that paludification of mineral forest soils already has occurred in the areas being exposed to that, and the additional protection drainage benefits remained marginal (Vasander 2011a).

Peat extraction for energy purposes has a long history in Europe. In Finland an industrial extraction of energy peat was started in 1876 (Vasander 2011b) but in larger scale it was encouraged during the World War II and during and after the oil crisis in 1973-74 (Ruuskanen 2010). Nowadays it is a part of domestic energy supply but debated for the loss of natural peatland and also due to its adverse impacts on climate and inland waters.

Lakes, rivers and minor freshwaters have given food and water for many purposes and provided transportation routes.

But when demand for food crops grew, even lakes were taken into agricultural use by decreasing the level of water surface or even drying entire lakes. Drainage of wetlands and flood protection have been important for the agriculture in Finland.

(25)

Planned cleaning of rivers and rapids was started in mid 18^th century. It was multipurpose activity for flood protection, water transportation, to get new crop land and meadows for cattle. By clearing rapids and rocky places one was able to support also peatland drainage (Siikamäki et al. 2004).

Water power of streams and rivers were first harnessed in 14^th century, when water mills for flour making were constructed. During the following century already more than hundred mills have been recognized. When the tar burning became a leading industry alongside agriculture, the improvement of the transportation capacity of rivers took off.

Also timber floating for developing sawmilling industry required clearing of rapids and improving routes. Practically all brooks and rivers capable for timber floating have been used for that purpose and in all the total length of floating routes have been 40 000 km (Siikamäki et al. 2004). The quality of inland waters was also worsening due to the liquid wastes of growing pulp and paper industries, the humus from peatland drainage for forestry and the nutrient loads from intensified agriculture.

2.3 A SHORT-CUT: PAINFUL PATHS TO MODERNITY

In 1809 the Kingdom of Sweden had to deliver its eastern part to the Russian Empire. Instead of Russification, the emperor granted the new Grand Duchy of Finland a large degree of political autonomy and promised to preserve the laws, decrees and privileges created under Swedish rule. The Emperor had the highest legal authority but the Finnish Senate (and Diet from 1863) had a permission to rule on the Grand Duchy’s “own affairs”. This laid the basis for “independent”

development, as country’s own organs of government – contingent upon absolute loyalty to the Emperor – had now more power in their hands than under Sweden (Michelsen 1995).

For many reasons the development did not come under way until the 1840s, but then the pace became brisk. However, the

(26)

food supply was still vulnerable, and the real catastrophe struck in the mid-1860s when sudden night frosts in the spring and autumn destroyed the grain crop during several years. The Finnish famine of 1866–1868 killed 15 percent of the population, making it the last and one of the worst famines in European history. This tragedy led the Russian Empire to ease financial regulations in the country, and investment rose in the following decades. Agricultural development was intensified and turned to milk cattle economy (Tiainen 2004). However, the growing economic affluence was largely based on Finland’s forest resources and the development of modern forest industries.

Russia and StPetersburg in particular provided growing markets for all developing industrial products, paper in particular, but also for agricultural products such as butter (Michelsen 1995, Kuisma 1993).

Economic and political development was rapid but contained hidden tensions within the society as the growing wealth in industries and agriculture did not meet all the members of the society. The number of landless people increased due to the population growth but also due to often unequal ways industry bought – or robbed – farmers’ forests. The profits of paper industry were compared to low salaries of workers. Socialistic ideas spread among tenants and landless people and workers of forest industries. There were increasing calls for land reforms, labor law and eight hour working day. External tensions appeared as well. In the turn of the century the Russification programme, demanding Finland to join more closely to the Empire, marked the beginning of so called first period of oppression. It ended with the General strike of 1905, which brought democratic reform of the parliament and broke the power structure of the class society (Kuisma 1993). The women were given a right to vote in elections and become elected in 1906, first in the world. Second period of oppression began in 1908, continuing until the First World War.

World War I did not influence very much directly Finland, but it brought the end to the old Russian Empire. Soon after the Russian Revolution, Finland declared its independence in

(27)

December 1917. The fears and hopes for the spread of revolutionary development into Finland caused a citizen war (liberation war) between the “Whites” and the “Reds”, won by the former. The civil war with its precedent events and its aftermaths left deep wounds into the divided society, which hardly was recovering during the further industrialization and agricultural development until World War II (1939-1945).

However, the nation was largely united in defending their young independence against the Soviet Union in the Winter War of 1939 and during the continuation war period of 1941- 1945. Finland was able to maintain her independence, although had to cede about 10 per cent of its land base to the Soviet Union, including population centres, agricultural lands, forests and forest industries. During the long war period forests and other ecosystems provided vital supporting services both for men in the forefront and people at the home front.

The postwar economic development was still largely maintained by the forest industries, but the heavy war compensations to the Soviet Union were mainly ordered to be investment goods of metal and engineering industries, which acted as a driver to diversify the manufacturing industries.

Although the relative share of forest industries in the export, GDP and employment started continuously to decrease, the production of pulp and paper in particular continued to grow until 2007.

The rebuilding of the economy and resettlement of people meant heavy investments in all nature related activities, in agriculture, in forestry, the utilization of peatland and inland waters. For example, Siikamäki et al. (2004) noted that the Golden Era for water construction entered after the World War II. Water power stations and artificial lakes were built up, cleaning and embankment of river areas were done, and rewatering dried lakes and drainage of agricultural lands and peatlands were carried out. It has been estimated that only one tenth of river waters are unbuilt and natural, if the criteria is at least 50 km of natural river length without upstream dam.

(28)

2.4 FOREST, PEATLAND, FRESHWATER AND

AGROECOSYSTEMS IN THE PRESENT LAND USE IN FINLAND

Total area of Finland (without the area of sea water, 52 471 km²) is 338 432 km² and is divided between inland watercourses (10.2 %) and terrestrial land area (89.8 %). Inland watercourses correspond to aquatic ecosystems in this study and terrestrial ecosystems include forest, peatland and agroecosystems. Together these four ecosystems make 95.5 % of the land-based cover (without sea area).

Forests and forestry lands³ are regarded as the key natural resources, supplying wood, biomass for energy and many other benefits for industries and households. Forests are dominating terrestrial ecosystem composing of soils, trees, other plants, fauna and a variety of habitats maintaining biodiversity, visual landscape, recreational and other benefits. The concept of multiple use of forests has provided the common framework to identify and categorize forest goods and services and analyze their “internal” multiple production possibilities and externalities (e.g. Saastamoinen 1982, Kangas & Kokko 2001). As all other ecosystems forests are hierarchically structured dynamic ecosystem, which can be examined in different spatial and temporal scales (Kellomäki 2005, Kuuluvainen et al. 2004).

3 The concept forestry land in Finland breaks down into forest land, poorly productive forest land and unproductive land according to its capability of producing volume increment. On forest land the capability is 1.0 m³/ha/year or more (as an average of the rotation period), on poorly productive forest land 0.1 m³/ha/year or more, and on unproductive land less than that. It includes also forest roads, depots and other minor areas. Unproductive and a part of poorly productive forest land are not suitable for wood production (open areas or scanty trees and brushes covered areas) but good for many other forest uses such as grazing, recreation or for providing open space. Forestry land also includes large areas which are not meant for wood production (or it is restricted) (such as several types of nature conservation or other protected areas) (Finnish Statistical... 2012).

(29)

Fig. 2. Main land cover categories in Finland. Open area in the northernmost part refers mostly to open (treeless) fjelds. In other parts it refers to open peatlands.

The most common forest definition, which include all forested mires and peatland classified as productive or poorly productive forest land makes forest area to be 67.9 % of total area and 75.6 % of the land area (Forests (a) in Table 1). One gets lower forest shares (52.8 % of total area and 58.7 % of land area

(30)

(Forests (c) in Table 1) if only drained and transformed forest land mires are included into the concept of forests.

Aquatic ecosystems are combinations of abiotic water and biotic communities. All elements of water nature are examples of ecosystems and natural entities which maintain diverse biota, networks of interactions between biota and multitude of ecosystem processes or ecosystem functions (Walls & Rönkä 2004). This study deals only with freshwater ecosystems.

Finland is a country of thousands of lakes, which together with rivers and other aquatic ecosystems (brooks, ponds and springs) provide water, power, livelihoods and recreation.

However, despite the large number of lakes and significant area they covers (10 % of terrestrial surface) the volume of water stored is less than in the largest lake in Europe - Lake Ladoga in Russia, close to the Finnish border. It also gathers water from some Finnish rivers.

Peatland and mires originally covered 10.4 mill.ha (Päivänen &

Hånell 2012) or 31 % of the whole area of the country (without sea area) but now 26% of that and 29% of the land area.

Peatlands offer natural landscapes and variety of other environmental services and goods mainly in least inhabited parts of the country. However, roughly half of peatland and mires having proper forest cover (naturally, or due to the drainage) are classified both as forests and as peatlands.

Consequently, there are several possibilities for drawing the borderlines between forests and peatland ecosystems in the statistical summary (Table 1, Forests (a), (b) and (c)).

According to common international classification peatland is an area with or without vegetation but with a naturally accumulated peats layer at the surface. A mire is a peatland where peat is currently being formed, i.e. it is a wet terrain dominated by living peatforming plants. In short it can be said that the mire is a synthesis of water and soil (Päivänen & Hånell 2012). A Finnish word “suo” is a wetland with or without peat layer dominated by vegetation that may produce peat. In the latter case no minimum peat thickness has been set. This concept includes some non-peatland which belongs to wetlands

(31)

without being mire or peatland (Joosten & Clarke 2002, Päivänen & Hånell 2012).

One gets lower forest shares (52.8 % of total area and 58.7 % of land area (Forests (c) in Table 1) if only drained and transformed forest land mires are included into the concept of forests; and consequently higher shares of mires and peatland 18.3 % of total area and 20.3 % of land area, (Mires and peatland (c) in Table 1).

However, the whole amount of mires and peatland on all forestry land is 26.0 % of total area and 29.0 % of land are (Table 1, Mires and peatland (a)).

Agricultural environment is an essential part of Finland’s nature. It forms open landscapes, makes inland waters visible, and together with forests create the mosaic of landscapes regarded as traditional rural and cultural landscape of the country. Agroecosystems present a variety of ecosystems. The core systems are cultivated fields, which form the major basis of agricultural production. Edges surrounding fields towards rivers, lakes, roads and forests, meadows and old grazing areas create scenic and biotic diversity. The cultivated field ecosystem itself is a monoculture, managed for efficient crop production.

The field can be defined as an ecosystem, on which the field plant production is dependent. Domestic animal production on its part is dependent on feed produced in the fields. The field ecosystem is composed of the plant partial ecosystem, herbivore partial ecosystem, and decomposition partial ecosystem. A considerable part of plant field ecosystems are used for grass for milk cow, which is the major herbivore. If man is included into the foodweb he/she is the herbivor of bread grain ecosystem but ecologically a predator when eating meat of domestic animals (Helenius et al. 2004). As any other ecosystems agroecosystems form a spatial hierarchy of systems, where a block of field represent the lowest level, open fields and cultivated area the middle level and watershed and landscape areas the upper level (Helenius et al. 2004).

(32)

Table 1. Forest-, peatland, agro- and inland aquatic ecosystems by different definitions and their shares of total area and land area of Finland (calculated from the Finnish Statistical... 2012, some data based on 2011 statistics)

LAND CATEGORY mill. ha % %

TOTAL AREA OF FINLAND¹ 33.84 100

Inland watercourses² 3.45 10.2

LAND AREA 30.41 89.8 100

Forests³ (a)

Forests minus undrained mires (b) Forest land⁴

Forests on mineral and transformed land⁵(c)

22.98 20.77 20.26 17.86

67.9 61.4 59.9 52.8

75.6 68.3 66.6 58.7

All mires and peatland⁶ Mires and peatland⁷(c) Pristine mires and peatland⁸(b) Mires if all forest and poorly productive forest land are classified as forest (a)

8.81 6.18 4.08 2.16

26.0 18.3 12.1 6.4

29.0 20.3 13.4 7.1

Unproductive land⁹ Treeless peatland¹⁰ Mires in sub-arctic zone¹¹

Open fjelds mainly in sub-arctic zone¹² 3.196 1.531 0.294 1.00

9.4 4.5 0.6 3.0

10.5 5.0 0.7 3.3

Agricultural lands¹³ 2.75 8.1 9.0

Built-up areas¹⁴ 1.51 4.5 5.0

1 Without sea areas; ²Aquatic ecosystems: lakes and rivers; ³ Productive (20.31 mill. ha) and poorly productive forest land (2.52 mill. ha), including forest roads, depots etc.

(0.20 mill. ha); ⁴ Productive forest land only (20.31 mill. ha); ⁵ Forest land mineral soils (15.23 mill. ha) and drained, transformed mires on forest land (2.63 mill. ha) where ground vegetation consists of upland vegetation, and the growing stock is no longer suffering from excess water; ⁶ All mires and peatlands on (productive) forest land, poorly productive forestry land and unproductive forestry land; ⁷ As above minus transformed mires on forest land (2.63 mill. ha); ⁸ Undrained mires and peatlands;

9 Naturally treeless or almost treeless mineral or peatland areas, included into forestry land; ¹⁰ Open peatlands in all country, included into mires and peatland categories (^6,7,8,10), consequently also into (⁹); ¹¹Also called Fjeld-Lapland vegetation zone. Most mires (0.214 mill. ha) are treeless; ¹²An approximate of open fjeld areas in sub-arctic zone + open fjelds in northern boreal zone, both included into unproductive forestry land; ¹³Agroecosystems; ¹⁴ Built-up areas and transport routes

(33)

Together agricultural areas – representing agroecosystems – cover 8.1 % of total area and 9.0 % of land area (Table 1). It includes fields and grazing areas, unproductive areas and small forest areas inside agricultural environment.

Built-up areas include areas and surrounding environment required by population centres, mills, farms’ economy centres, dwellings, parks, cementaries as well as fuel peat supply areas, gravel pits, if there is equipment (VMI11 2009). Here also transport routes such as roads and railways as well as airport areas combined into built-up areas. They cover 4.5 % of total area and 5.0 % of land area.

Open areas (Fig. 2) correspond roughly to unproductive forestry land (Table 1) and are either naturally treeless or almost treeless mineral or peatland areas. Open peatland areas are included into peatland and mire ecosystems category.

Largest open mineral lands are found in sub-arctic zone but there are treeless or almost treeless fell areas also in northern boreal zones. One could separate a fifth ecosystem called as

“fjeld ecosystems” which includes “open fjelds” locating mainly in sub-arctic zone but covering some open fjeld areas in northern boreal zone. Its area can be approximated to be about 1 mill. ha, or ca 3 % of terrestrial land base. It will be given separate considerations in the synthesis study.

(34)

3. Ecosystems, their

structures, functions and management

3.1 DEFINITIONS OF ECOSYSTEMS

The concept of ecosystem was first suggested by A.G.

Tansley (1935), in his critical article “The use and abuse of vegetational terms and concepts”, published in Ecology.

Compared to some earlier conceptualizations he emphasized the role of abiotic components in the concept: “The more fundamental conception is … the whole system … including not only the organism-complex, but also the whole complex of physical factors forming what we call the environment of the biome - the habitat factors in the widest sense. .. It is the systems so formed which, from the point of view of the ecologist, are the basic units of nature on the face of the earth... These ecosystems, as we may call them, are of the most various kinds and sizes“.

Tansley (1935) explicitly included man-modified ecosystems into his concept. “Forest may be converted into grassland by grazing animals. The substitution of the one type of vegetation for the other involves destruction of course, but not merely destruction: it also involves the appearance and gradual establishment of new vegetation... We must have a system of ecological concepts which will allow of the inclusion of all forms of vegetational expression and activity. We cannot confine ourselves to the so-called "natural" entities and ignore the processes and expressions of vegetation now so abundantly provided us by the activities of man”.

Besides being fundamental in ecological and biological sciences, ecosystem concept has widely been used in a large

(35)

array of environmental and applied natural sciences. In ecological economics it became a paradigmatic concept, which found also some niches in other social sciences. Recently, ecosystem concept was introduced into the business vocabulary⁴.

In ecological sciences, the ecosystem definition of Odum (1971) has been widely used (e.g. Kellomäki 2009): “Any unit that include all the organisms (i.e. the “community”) in a given area interacting with the physical environment so that a flow of energy leads to clearly defined trophic structure, biotic diversity and material cycles (i.e. the exchange of matter between living and non-living parts) within the system is an ecological system or ecosystem”.

Millenium Ecosystems Assessment (MA 2003) summarizes that “an ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the nonliving environment, interacting as a functional unit. Humans are an integral part of ecosystems”. It gives advice on the boundaries of ecosystems:

“A well-defined ecosystem has strong interactions among its components and weak interactions across its boundaries. A useful ecosystem boundary is the place where a number of discontinuities coincide, for instance in the distribution of organisms, soil types, drainage basins, or depth in a water body.

At a larger scale, regional and even globally distributed ecosystems can be evaluated based on a commonality of basic structural units”. This may help, for example, further studies for drawing an ecological borderline between forest and peatland ecosystems (Ch. 2.4).

The emphasis of MA (2003) was that humans are an integral part of ecosystems. This is in line with the idea of coupled socio- ecological systems (e.g. Haila & Levins 1992, Naskali 2010), which links more explicitly the influence of economy and institutional structures on the functioning of ecological systems.

4 ”Today, the battle is moving from one of mobile devices to one of mobile ecosystems… Ecosystems thrive when they reach scale, when they are fueled by energy and innovation” Open Letter from CEO Stephen Elop, Nokia and

(36)

Haila & Levins (1992) point out that when people intervene the functioning of the system, they become a part of the system and lose their position as external regulators. They also remind that the action of the human subject actually is an output of conflicting interests.

3.2 AN EARLY EXAMPLE ON ECOSYSTEM ORIENTATION IN THE APPLIED SCIENCES

An integration of economic and ecological systems in applied sciences may often have had a narrow focus of economic interests (Haila & Levins 1992) but there has always been a wide temporary, spatial, disciplinary and institutional variation in regard to goals and ideals of integration and their implementation.

Finnish forest sciences have strong ecological foundations much thanks to forest site type theory of A.K. Cajander (1917, 1926). He was a botanist, the first professor in silviculture at the University of Helsinki and the director general of the state forest organization. He planned and organized forest education, research and administration from the 1910’s to 1930’s.

According to the forest site type theory, the forest and peatland types defined on the basis of the ground vegetation reflect the fertility of the soil and wood production capacity, i.e.

productivity of the site. The biological classification and mapping of forest sites served silviculture and forest planning, forest inventory and growth studies and formed a basis for forest land taxation.

The forest and peatland site type system has been of great value to research on the biodiversity of forest ecosystems as each site type is characterized by a specific flora and fauna (Hannelius & Kuusela1995, Kuuluvainen et al. 2004). An understanding that boreal coniferous forests are ecosystems governed by natural laws has no doubt been the foundation of Finnish silviculture and forest management (Hannelius &

Kuusela 1995). This does not say that all forestry activities have

Concepts and considerations for the synthesis of ecosystem goods and services in Finland

Olli Saastamoinen, Jukka matero,

Emmmi Haltia, Paula Horne, Seppo Kellomäki, Matleena Kniivilä & Kyösti Arovuori

Concepts and considera-

tions for the synthesis

of ecosystem goods and

services in Finland

Concepts and considerations for the synthesis of ecosystem goods and services in Finland

Forward

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Features on land use history and changes in Finland

3. Ecosystems, their

structures, functions and management